A question to an honest (= Materialist) Atheist

Chamber of Debate Challenges
1

Assuming you are (A) Atheist & (B) Materialist: I want to ask you why you choose to live.

@ghatzige I pick you as first choice for this challenge. (I am @LampAndNightingale , back as l have some free time plus l just want to shoot the breeze about this existential topic)

I require you to give me answers true to materialism. You must not veer into spirituality, metaphysical or anything else non-physical.

Please:

  1. Nobody that hates “the examined life”

  2. Nobody trying to have the debate upfront, in this thread. Some small margin will be given for clarification on terminology and conditions of debate. But no debating what l say in response, take it or leave it. I’ve seen this debate get derailed before by people to whom condition (1) applies to.

  3. As per my earlier debate challenge, here are the conditions: 3 opponents maximum, who can support each other in that they can take their cue from each other, fill in gaps in the other’s arguments etc.

    The 3 people can either all be present at the start, or they may join on a rolling basis.

    So, the implementation would be like this:

    I make the opening statement, the opponent(s) each get to respond. That signals the end of Round 1.

    Repeat until 5 rounds are complete.

    The rest of the rules are:

    • 5 rounds, maximum 1,000 words each
    • As always, no logical fallacies, including false logical fallacy callouts (which default to non sequitur / reductio ad absurdam)
    • No idle insults, argue sincerely
    • The emphasis is on productive chat, results. Even: points scored. By all means, join if you want to score points, l’m not insecure about that. But it has to be done with academic rigour and thus be useful.
1 Like
Atheist Materialism Interrogated: Why Choose Life?
2

Welcome back to forum. Since I do not know what direction this debate can take, I have to state the following before hand (I have mentioned these in other threads):

- I am subjectivist. This means I do not know if objective reality, morality etc. exist, since I have access to reality, morality etc. only through my subjective opinion.

- I am materialist, with worldview motivated by the Epicurean physics. This means I consider causality and swerve (i.e. free motion) to coexist in nature. Some may call this metaphysical claim, I consider it physical hypothesis and I can support it with existing scientific knowledge.

If you are ok with the above, then I can perticipate in the debate.

3

Sure, okay that’s fine.

@Carleas please would you set up this debate? Also, Carleas you are welcome to join as Opponent #2

4

This time, as mentioned, l am to make the OP

@Carleas @ghatzige

5

Yes of course. It is interrogation of materialism after all.

6

And the good thing is, you get the last word :wink: (unlike the earlier debate where you were OP and l closed)

1 Like
7

Assuming that I am material only, I “choose” to live because to exist is all I “know”.

To keep existing, as I am, in material form, is all I can really do.

I will now suggest that if you are looking for what you call an honest atheist - or a materialist, who must not veer into absolutely anything non-physical, then you do not ask question that require “choices” or “knowledge”, as these things exist in ‘thought’. And, we human beings are not yet certain if ‘thought’ itself is a physical/material thing or not.

8

Materialism considers these to be physical procceses. The basic axiom “everything is physical and there is nothing supernatural” includes thoughts.

With the same way, the basic axiom of theism is that God exists. You cannot prove it, but you can use it axiomatically if you are theist.

9

Of course.

But, just considering something is true, without obtaining actual proof first, could be about one of the most foolish and/or dangerous things a human being could do.

Trying to justify, because materialism considers thoughts to be physical things, thoughts therefore are physical things, is like trying to justify, because theism considers God exists, God therefore must exist.

The stupidity and foolishness of this ‘way of reasoning’ I thought was blatantly obvious. But, obviously, some do not.

I just noticed we used the exact same examples.

The very reason human beings have been bickering and fighting over the exact same things, for thousands upon thousands of years, is because what you presume and/or believe is true, you literally then assume or believe it must be true.

Human beings really need to evolve more, grow up, and mature. Starting from FALSE axioms, postulates, or assumptions will, obviously, only lead you astray.

Current humanity, which has been led here, from human history, proves this FACT.

Part of the reason why those human beings who have still not yet found the PROOFS are still fighting and in conflict with others, is because they started with and from FALSE axioms.

Those human beings who actually believe that things like whether God exists or not cannot be proved, is because they also began with and from FALSE axioms.

Remove the axioms, and the proof can be recognised, and seen.

Why do some of you human beings even begin with what you call, “basic axioms”, in the first place?

By the way, you can use just about absolutely anything axiomatically. But, why would anyone?

10

Who is this “l” we keep reading about?

11

Because philosophy works with axioms. And science too. The first scientific tool, the maths, is full of axioms. You start with definitions and axioms and you move forward with propositions, proofs, etc.

In the other thread you defined cult and you postulated axiomatically that everyone belongs to a cult. That is not proof.

If you want to be fully agnostic, be consistent and assert nothing. But I have not yet met someone who is fully agnostic consistently.

12

Do you know what an axiom is?

13

And just look at the mess these two are in right now.

One has been seeking the answers to the meaningful questions in Life, but even after thousands of years no answers have been found.

The other cannot even tell us what space and time is, yet science claims to know what spacetime is.

People who do science think that maths will help them find answers, but that has been proven to be just another false axiom, which has led people astray.

Again, you can start with absolutely anything, but if one does not even know if what they are starting with is true or false, then why people are still looking for answers, contradicting each other and themselves, and even disputing over the definition of words, is totally understandable.

LOL I never postulated axiomatically that everyone belongs to a cult.

Why did you postulate such a conclusion?

AGAIN, I claimed that everyone here is in a cult BECAUSE I have the actual proof, already.

That you people believe that you are not in a cult and/or that I do not have proof, never means that this is the actual truth.

If you people did not start with axioms, assumptions, or postulates, then you would have remained open, in order to then find out if I have the actual proof or not.

Bui, while you keep your axioms, assumptions, and postulates, you will keep your biases, and then you will obviously only find and see what aligns with those biases.

Why this is still not obvious to human beings in the year 2026 is quite amazing.

Just because one might be called a so-called “agnostic” this does not mean that that human being has to assert absolutely nothing at all.

Who cares?

Just maybe the reason you have, supposedly, not yet met someone who is fully agnostic consistently is because you started with the axiom, postulate, assumption, or belief that there is not one like that.

14

I know what a dictionary says an axiom is.

What is an axiom, to you?

Are you aware that there can be and are false axioms? Or, do you hold the axiom that there can not be?

15

In modern logic, an axiom is a premise or starting point for reasoning. It is not question of true or false, it is a question of accept or reject. Even in maths you can reject axioms.

Typical example:

In Euclidean geometry two parallel lines never intersect.

In projective geometry parallel lines intersect at a point which lies on the line at infinity.

According to what you want to do, you can follow Euclidean or projective geometry, but not both when it comes to parallel lines.

Enough with that discussion here, we are out of topic for the specific thread. You can open another thread and discuss these issues.

16

I have a hypothesis. Let’s test it. I believe that if you continue communicating with anew1, he will assert very many things, many of which will never be justified. And yet somehow he is someone who does not believe in anything [he did used to say he believed in one True thing - so perhaps this will come up]. During this time he may well tell you that you are making assumptions.

1 Like
17

LOL In “modern logic”. You speak as though logic itself changes over time.

I asked you, “What is an axiom, to you?” Either you can and will answer this, or you can not or will not.

You are absolutely free to accept or reject absolutely anything. But, I will suggest to you accepting an axiom to be true, which is or could be false, and conversely, rejecting an axiom, which is or could be true, is a very, very foolish thing to do. That people like yourself do this explains why you people are still searching for answers and resolutions.

Who cares.

Again, you are absolutely free to accept or reject absolutely anything.

But, accepting an axiom that is or could be false and starting from there is absolutely idiotic and stupid to me.

Again, who cares?

I was wondering why you were going off topic here.

So, you bring up and off-topic discussion, but then you say that it is I who can open another thread and discuss your off-topic issues here.

Look, you claimed that both philosophy and science works with axioms.

I then just pointed out that the reason why there are still many unanswered questions, and so many things being fought over, in both science and philosophy, has a lot to do with starting from axioms.

18

Who cares?..……….

19

Once again your dishonest and deceptive character shines through very brightly here.

I said that you actually believe that passing on your own very wrong and distorted interpretations and beliefs is “key information”.

To which you replied,

Yet here you are still passing on your “key information” to others.

Just like the other bullies and those who are truly insecure, you want to try to get others on “your side” to gang up and be against “the other”, first.

Imagine being so afraid and insecure that you go around, in a philosophy forum of all places, wanting to “warn” others about one individual.

20

Again, starting from an axiom, presumption, postulate, theory, hypothesis, assumption, belief, view, opinion, or absolutely anything else, which could be false, wrong, inaccurate, and/or incorrect I find absolute insanity.

I also found that doing that is a huge reason why human beings in the 21st century were still looking for, and fighting over, answers. They were so far behind it is was totally ridiculous.